Slow Science But Fast Forward: The Political Economy of Rock Art Research in A Globalized World

Abstract

Abstract There is no doubt that the past decades have brought exciting and novel understandings about geographic distributions, chronologies and analytical methods to the studies of rock art. Even from the lurch into the twenty-first century, this has been a fast forward: increasing confirmations of early image-making in Australia and other places; successful application of a new dating method to reveal previously unimagined figurative images in very deep time in Borneo; a proliferation of rock art knowledge and research; and expanded and inter-connected communities of researchers are just a few among many examples of fast-breaking news for the field. But at the same time, some of the practices that are decried by the arena of “slow science” are still with us and have, perhaps, precisely as part of the “globalization” of rock art research, become more entrenched by those who consider the field to be more competitive than collaborative, still motivated by the pull of “origins” research and claims, and the lack of retractions when, indeed, a need for such is at hand and for the betterment of the field. Slow science promotes time to think, rather than haste to get out the big next “scoop”; it promotes the reminder that we are enmeshed more than ever in broader social interests, human experiences and human needs, and for a more lasting and even an ethical science, racing ahead is deeply problematic. This chapter will explore the issues implicated by the fast-moving world with its dampening of local knowledges and alienations of non-experts as is situated in rock art research and the benefits/mandates of what slow science can bring to the field. In fact, I will suggest that rock art research is an ideal field for advancing the benefits and the power of slow science.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.